The Indonesian Supreme Court on July 29th 2020 overturned the decision of the Central Jakarta Commercial Court No. 71 / Pdt.Sus-Merek / 2019 dated March 9th 2020. By overturning the decision of the Central Jakarta Commercial Court, the trademark cancellation action filed by Seagate Technology LLC as the Plaintiff against Tjung Andrey Adi Saputra, the Defendant, was declared inadmissible. Oppositely, this means the Cassation filed by Tjung Andrey Adi Saputra was accepted and granted by the Supreme Court.
In its decision, the Supreme Court carefully considered that the Power of Attorney provided by Seagate Technology LLC as the Plaintiff, was legally flawed as it was signed by an unauthorized third party. The Power was signed by the Vice President who worked for the Plaintiff but it was based on authorization or mandate from the Executive Vice President and Chief of Financial Officer. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, the Power should have been signed by an official who is equivalent to the President Director, who is called the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) according to the legal system of the United States.
Based on the above, the Supreme Court has eventually decided as followed:
JUDGING
To accept the Cassation Petition filed by Tjung Andrey Adi Saputra;
To cancel the Decision of the Central Jakarta District Court No. 71 / Pdt.Sus-Merek / 2019 / PN.NIAGA.JKT.PST dated March 9 2020.
JUDGING with Own Consideration
In the Pleadings:
In the Substantive Matter of the Case:
By granting the Cassation, the object of the cancellation action namely the registered SEAGATE trademark (Registration No. IDM000082762) remains valid in the name of Tjung Andrey Adi Saputra unless there is a transfer of trademark rights from him to another party as stated in the Law No. 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications.
Responding to the Supreme Court’s decision, Donny A. Sheyoputra from the Sheyoputra Law Office stated:
“We appreciate this Supreme Court decision because it indicates that the Supreme Court as the last line of defense for justice seekers has applied the law in a consistent and objective manner, especially for the formality aspects. The Supreme Court has accurately and carefully upheld the rules of procedural law where the Power of Attorney used by the Plaintiff was proven to be legally flawed because it was signed by a party who was not authorized to do so. For us, the issue is not just disputing the existence of a registered trademark, but also formality aspects and methods used by the Plaintiff to file cancellation action against our client’s registered trademark. Any claims of right ownership in all litigation process should not be granted if the formality and procedural aspects are ignored.”
Donny Sheyoputra further added:
“During the hearing at Central Jakarta Commercial Court, we had submitted our client’s pleadings challenging the validity of the Plaintiff’s Power of Attorney. Apart from being signed by an unauthorized party, the Power was contrary to the Law No. 13 of 1985 concerning Stamp Duty. There was no stamp duty on it! Unfortunately, it was a shame that these pleadings were not granted by the Panel of Judges at the Commercial Court, even though Article 11 Paragraph (1) Point a of the Law No. 13 of 1985 on Stamp Duty clearly states that Government Officials, judges, clerks, bailiffs, notaries and other public officials, each in their duties or positions are NOT permitted to accept, consider or store documents for which the Stamp Duty is not or wrongly presented.”
“Therefore, accepting and granting the Plaintiff’s cancellation action means that the judges have breached the Law No. 13 of 1985 on Stamp Duty as they accepted and kept legal documents without proper stamp duty on it,” concluded Donny.
